It shows that conservative arguments for tax cuts resulting in tax revenues growing are wrong. And when the DotCom bubble burst, it was yet another deregulation failure by conservative ideals. So you admit that the spending put people to work, which ended the Great Depression. Thanks. It did, as you highlighted. And Keyneaianpolicy is toned the spending once recessions are ended. Look, recessions can end without government spending, but it just takes longer, with lower growth and higher social costs, overall. The US's austerity once the TeaBaggeds won control of the House and were able to block responses to the recession made it drag out longer, with larger deficits and an impact on future growth that will haunt us for years to come. The question is, do we want conservative economic policies to bring back the much more volatile boom/bust cycles, larger deficits, higher unemployment with more low wage jobs in the economy and lose market share to other nations? Or do we want to see the US with a working economy, with people suffering less, and holding competitive advantages over the rest of the world using a mixture of Keynesian and progressive policies that has had a record of success that conservative, NeoClassical Econ just can't lay claim to? To me, it's simple by going with the approach that sees full employment, without relying on bubbles that conservatives need to inflate for a few years until they collapse.
And the Fed isn't our problem, at the moment. By the way... To all of those out there worried about inflation being "theft"... How do they explain inflation during the years of specie based money, before the Fed?
Deficits were low compared to GDP, with a couple of years of surpluses, and debt was lowered compared to GDP. Seems like I know the difference. Do you?
If you go to http://www.treasurydirect.gov/ and look up each year of the Clinton term (09/30/1993 through 09/28/2001) you will see the debt did not decrease any of those years. There was a deficit every year of the Clinton budget. Here is the data from TreasuryDirect: Year - National Debt - Deficit FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion
Looking over the last century, the Clinton presidency was the only one that brought in more in taxes that it spent. Was that due purely to tax increases, or were spending cuts, and the dot.com bubble significant contributors? What deregulation was that? I was in the midst of that bubble and bust - and recognized it as a bubble, not due to deregulation, but due to the time lag between demand and fulfillment. The dot.com bubble / bust was a classic beer game, exacerbated by multiple levels of supply chain. Spending, yes. Government spending, no (it actually was cut sharply). In fact, the Great Depression ended despite huge reduction in government spending. Based on one data point, the end of WWII? Show me another data point. How well has all the spending the Obama administration has done at recovering from the recession. Too bad Reagan didn't do that to fix the stagflation he acquired (stagflation is impossible under Keynesian economics). That's right, Obama was too busy to fix the economy when the Democrats had 100% control... And these wonder plans are??? Why were they not incorporated in the first two years when the Democrats had total control?
It was a combination of higher revenues from an expanding economy with full employment (which cuts costs for government, too), higher revenues from tax increases and lower costs to governments because of the full employment, and the cuts that Dick Cheney enacted on the military. Both legislated deregulation and de facto deregulation. The Gingrich congresses started steering money away from regulators, from the SEC, to banking regulators, and breaking down the walls between commercial banks and investment banks, as well as turning a blind eye to many financial institutions that act similarly to banks, while not being under all of the rules of banking. the government spending was the major stimulus spending during the war. The Depression was over before the government stopped spending after the war and Marshall plan-like spending to rebuild nations around the world. Government was spending money before the war, and saw recovery progress, until the spending stopped in 1937-38. Then the country fell back into another recession. When spending started again in 1939, the recovery started again. The final effects of the Great Depression were finally smashed with the deficit spending of WWII. Carter had already addressed the issue of stagflation by appointing Paul Volcker to the Fed. The recession of the early 1980s wasn't caused by the same things that caused the housing bubble and Great Recession. Reagan did spend money, though, to lessen the effects of that recession. And Keynesian monetary policies were the path out of it. Volcker is still considered a genius, while Greenspan is debunked. http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/05/obama-and-keyne.html 100% control for what? 5 1/2 weeks? There was 7 years of Bush and 6 years of GOP control leading up to the start of the recession. And the bubble was identified by Dean Baker as early as 2002, and the Bushies and GOP did nothing to stop it from blowing up. It's not wonder plans. It's economics. And 5 1/2 weeks of a filibuster proof Senate is not 2 years of total control. The right has to collectively learn some kind of real world economics, and instead they parrot some nonsense Austrian School bull(*)(*)(*)(*) or trickle down/Neoclassical Econ, that has a history of not working. Again, want to see the results of conservative policies? Look no further than the recession we're in and the Great Depression. Conservatives haven't learned a single thing about economics in 80 years. Frankly, the Democrats got scared of the necessary price tag. The GOP have done nothing but obstruct since January 2009.
I'm not sure I agree there was any great stimulus by Clinton. Revenues rose dramatically thanks to his tax increase, and spending increased only to a limited extent, relative to GDP spending fell every year he was in office. That of course is a lot different than the austerity we've been doing over the last 4 years, and the '91 recession was mild compared to the GR. - - - Updated - - - Not true. There was a surplus in 2000 as I proved earlier in this thread. Learn the difference between a deficit and debt. - - - Updated - - - People weren't employed in WWII because everyone was saving. They were employed because the Govt was spending (*)(*)(*)(*)loads of money on the war. - - - Updated - - - The debt actually decreased $114 billion in 2000.
That is a false representation of the Treasury data. You've been deceived and lied to by the RW computer programmer with no economics training or background, and it shows. Nowhere on the Treasury Direct web page does it say that data is a deficit. Don't believe me? Check it yourself: http://treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm Learn the difference between a deficit and debt. The debt is how much the country has borrowed at any point in time. A deficit is a function of the budget, measured by the difference between receipts and deficits for a period of time, usually a fiscal year. While the two have some relation in that a government running a deficit usually has to borrow money, they are not directly related as the RW computer programmer fooled you into believing. Government can and does borrow money or pay down debt for various reason other than the budget. There was a surplus in 2000. Even the Treasury that you rely upon says so.
All three helped. But if you take out the effect of the additional tax revenues that grew far faster than the economy (quite the opposite of the Reagan and Bush tax cut years) you get no surplus, and end up over a hundred billion shy. Wow, I've heard a lot of interesting claims about the GD, but that's a new one. What huge reduction in spending was there before the GD ended. The only spending cut I'm aware of was in 1937, which followed by a recession in 1938. I may be off by a year on those dates. The GD was over well before the end of WWII by any measure. The only major spending stimulus by Obama was the Stimulus, which was about $450 billion spread over a couple years -- barely over a percentage point of GDP. Compared to, say, WWII, it was spit. Since then we've we've had the opposite -- we've had decreases in spending and government employment, i.e. austerity. Are you kidding me? Compare: Reagan Spending increase, 1981-1985: +39.5%. Total government employment, 1981-1985: +607,0000 Obama Spending increase, 2009-2013: -1.89% Total government employment, 2009-2013: -667,000 source data Expenditures: http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45249-2014-04-HistoricalBudgetData.xlsx Employment: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm I know the RW propaganda tells you what a big spender Obama is and that Reagan was a small government miser, but the facts tell a different story. Is that right? When Obama took office, the economy was tanking at a -9% real rate, losing 700,000+ jobs a month, unemployment was skyrocketing upward, and the stock markets and housing markets were crashing in the worst recession in 80 years. The deficit was running at $1.2 trillion, soon projected to hit $1.9 trillion, the housing market was destroyed, and the economy was headed straight for a depression. By the end of his second year in office the economy was growing, jobs were being added, the stock markets were recovering, and the deficit was falling relative to GDP.
LOL, you are wrong. Go here http://treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current Enter the beginning-ending dates in the chart I posted in post #154 and you copied in post #158. The Treasury Direct site will then give you the national debt at the start date and end date. Then - and here you must engage the brain - look at the debt at the end of each year of Clintons term. The debt increased every year - meaning there was a deficit every year (that's the last column in the chart I posted). No year had a surplus. Once again you are proven wrong. ***** And by the way, your link shows the exact same thing - there WAS NO SURPLUS. LOL, your own link debunks your entire claim! What a prog.
Clinton's stimulus program was not large, as the recession was mild. It was somewhere in the neighborhood of $20 billion, if I recall. But, afterwards, he did the Keynesian ideal and paid for the deficits that were left from Reagan/Bush and the recession (automatic stabilizers kicking in). But the rest I will agree with.
LOL, sure thing. Please show us how I am wrong by quoting the language from that page that says it is the deficit. Thanks. Thanks, I know how to figure what the debt is. But we are talking about the deficit or surplus. Do you know the difference? Far from it. You apparently do not understand the difference between the debt and a deficit. Hint: It's not what a RW computer programmer with no economics background misleads you about. The debt shows what the US Government owes. A deficit or surplus is measured not by the debt, as the RW computer programmer with no economics background falsely misleads you to belief, but by the difference between revenues and outlays: Government Accountability Office Deficit: The amount by which the government’s spending exceeds its revenues for a given period, usually a fiscal year. (opposite of surplus) http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05734sp.pdf Congressional Budget Office deficit: The amount by which the federal government’s total outlays exceed its total revenues in a given period, typically a fiscal year. Compare with surplus http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/glossary.pdf Office of Management and Budget Deficit means the amount by which outlays exceed receipts in a fiscal year. It may refer to the on-budget, off-budget, or unified budget deficit. (See budget totals.) http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/a11_current_year/s20.pdf ***** LOL, To the contrary. That page states it is the debt, and says nothing about a deficit. Again, prove I'm wrong by quoting the language on that page where it says anything about a deficit. Thanks. ***** And by the way, here is where the Treasury page *does* talk about deficits and surpluses: http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/index.html "Monthly Receipts, Outlays, and Deficit or Surplus, Fiscal Years 1981-2013:" This Web site contains the monthly receipts/outlays and deficit/surplus of the United States published in Table 1 of the Monthly Treasury Statement, for fiscal years 1981-2013. The figures reflect backdated adjustments and may be amended (monthly) based on agency reporting. Period - Deficit/Surplus (-) Oct-99 26,326 Nov-99 27,031 Dec-99 -33,081 Jan-00 -62,152 Feb-00 41,734 Mar-00 35,380 Apr-00 -159,497 May-00 3,611 Jun-00 -55,888 Jul-00 -5,061 Aug-00 10,427 Sep-00 -65,747 Cumulative for 12 months ending Sep (FY00) -$236.917 billion (Surplus). *Your* source, the Treasury Department, on the page where is states it is data on the surplus and deficit (not the debt), showing a surplus. +++ And another: Summarizes the financial activities of the federal government and off-budget federal entities in accordance with the Budget of the U.S. Government. Presents a summary of: Receipts and outlays Surplus or deficit Means of financing on a modified cash basis Data provided by federal entities, disbursing officers, and Federal Reserve Banks. http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/overview.html http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0900.pdf *Your* source, the Treasury Department, on the page where is states it is data on the surplus and deficit (not the debt), showing a surplus. ***** And another: 10/24/2000 SUMMARY The Administration today is releasing the budget results for Fiscal Year 2000 (1). These results show the actual financial totals for the fiscal year that ended September 30, 2000, as follows: o a unified budget surplus of $237 billion; o an on-budget surplus (excluding Social Security and Postal Service) of $87 billion; o a surplus excluding Medicare as well as Social Security and Postal Service of $58 billion; o total outlays of $1,788 billion; o total receipts of $2,025 billion; SURPLUS The unified surplus in FY 2000 was $237.0 billion, the largest ever, in nominal terms and almost twice as large as in FY 1999. Relative to the size of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), this year's surplus at 2.4 percent was the largest since 1948. This is the first time there have been three consecutive years of surpluses since 1947-49. Excluding Social Security and the Postal Service, the on-budget surplus of $87.2 billion was the largest ever and the first back-to-back annual surplus since 1956-57. Excluding Medicare as well as Social Security and the Postal Service, the surplus was $57.5 billion. This is the first such surplus since Medicare began operations in 1966. http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/ls968.aspx *Your* source, the Treasury Department, on the page where is states it is data on the surplus and deficit (not the debt), showing a surplus. ***** You've been mislead by RW propaganda once again, this time a RW computer programmer who has no background in economics and who doesn't know what a deficit is and doesn't understand the difference between a deficit and the debt. But, even if we go with your RW computer programmer's ignorant understanding and we were to erroneously say that a deficit is the difference between levels of debt in a given year, we *still* have a "surplus" under Clinton, because, as *your* source, the Treasury Department shows, the total debt decreased by $114 billion in 2000: ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opds122000.pdf I have now demonstrated to you that not only bi-partisan Congressional Budget Office shows there was a deficit, but the very source you have relied upon for your position, the Treasury Department, says again and again that there was a surplus in 2000. You now have the opportunity to demonstrate your credibility and that you are now a complete partisan hack by acknowledging the fact that, contrary to what your RW computer programmer claims, the Treasury Department does in fact show that there was a surplus in 2000. LOL
Congratulations on trying to make something incredibly simple into something incredibly difficult (I presume you do that because you are wrong and are trying to cover your mistake with loads of BS. When the debt increases, it means the govt did not take in enough money to pay its expenses - there was a deficit. Its straightforward and does not require all the tap-dancing and misdirection you present. Instead of wasting all that time creating such a huge post, just admit you are wrong and be done with it.
It is incredibly simple. If you know the difference between a deficit and the debt. But hey, nice job showing us where the Treasury page on the debt says anything about a deficit. You ignored it because it doesn't. LOL, your own source is now "loads of BS" because it completely contradicts your argument. Nope. It means the Govt borrowed more money, for whatever reason it decided it needed to borrow more money. But as your own source proves, the debt did go down $114 billion in 2000. You want me to admit your own source is wrong? As I wrote: You now have the opportunity to demonstrate your credibility and that you are not a complete partisan hack by acknowledging the fact that, contrary to what your RW computer programmer claims, the Treasury Department does in fact show that there was a surplus in 2000. You sure showed us.
Where was the right when we had massive budget surpluses; does anyone remember them clamoring for commodity money or a gold standard, or paying down the debt?
Actually, socialism can involve state capitalism, and what is seen as capitalism may also be a mixed economy. Also, there are two more points in my message.
Please explain what the space age has to do with this, and how it negates the points I raised earlier.
I believe central planning and income transfers can get An-Cappers to their off the shelf, light saber kits, sooner rather than later.
How does that show that the Fed is not a consortium of private banks and that it did not bail out Wall Street in 2008?
It is irrelevant since only our federal Congress, assembled, can enact fiscal policies in our republic.
But that nothing to do with the space race disproving the two points that I raised. Also, the Fed operates independently of the government. Finally, given the level of M2 (and beyond) compared to required reserves, I very much doubt that even the government is in control of the economy.
Monetary policy lags behind fiscal policy simply because our federal Congress is delegated the social Power to write words on formerly blank pieces of paper and have them enacted as laws in our republic. Fiscal policies may have the force of law.
